Back
Allahbad High Court
B.N.LOKUR
Adarsh Kanya Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kanpur - Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09/13/1971
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT - SECTION 16-A, 16-D - SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION - PARAGRAPH 19, 20 - APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR - EMERGENCY PROVISION - ULTRA VIRES - INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT - QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an educational institution, challenged the appointment of an Administrator under paragraph 20 of the Scheme of Administration made under Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act. The State Government issued a notice to the President of the institution alleging mismanagement and appointed an Administrator without giving adequate opportunity to the President to show cause against the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that paragraph 20 of the Scheme of Administration is ultra vires and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 16-D of the Act, which provides for the appointment of an Authorised Controller in case of mismanagement. The Court found that paragraph 20 creates an alternative remedy that is more stringent than that provided by the Act and is not subject to the same conditions precedent.
Issues: 1. Whether paragraph 20 of the Scheme of Administration is ultra vires and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 16-D of the Act? 2. Whether the appointment of the Administrator was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that paragraph 20 of the Scheme of Administration is ultra vires and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 16-D of the Act. The Court reasoned that the Act provides a comprehensive scheme for dealing with mismanagement of educational institutions, and that paragraph 20 creates an alternative remedy that is more stringent than that provided by the Act and is not subject to the same conditions precedent. The Court also found that the appointment of the Administrator was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the State Government appointing the Administrator.
(1) When the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impossible to carry on properly the administration of the school/college in the normal manner it may appoint an administrator.
Provided that no such Administrator shall be appointed except:
(a) on the recommendation of the Committee, or
(b) on the recommendation of the Director of Education and after allowing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation.
(2) Upon such appointment being made the Committee and all the office-bearers shall stand suspended and all their powers and functions shall vest in the Administrator except that he will not have the authority to take loan for or on behalf of the Society or School/ College or to transfer any immovable property thereof."
The remaining sub-paragraphs of paragraph 20 are not material.
2. Purporting to act under the said paragraph 20 the State Government issued a notice to the President of the petitioner institution on the 29th April, 1969. calling upon him to show cause why an administrator should not be appointed. The notice set out fifteen charges of mismanagement of the institution which led to the issue of the notice. At this time a writ petition filed by the petitioner institution challenging the order withholding the grant-in-aid to the institution was pending in the High Court, suits instituted by some teachers of the institution were also pending in a subordinate Civil Court. It is the petitioner's case that the writ petition as well as the Civil suits involved questions which had relevance to the charges mentioned in the notice. The petitioner institution wrote to the State Government on the 14th May, 1969. that as many common questions arose in the aforesaid pending litigations and in the charges set out in the notice, he apprehended that he would be committing contempt of court if he offered comments and explanations of the charges and hence he should not compelled to reply to the notice. In the two Annexures to the representation, a table was attached containing a comparison of the allegations the charges as well as the averments made in the pending writ petition and the pending civil suits. The State Government informed the petitioner on the 14th November, 1969, that the pending litigation did not in any way preclude the President from giving explanation to the charges in the notice. The Civil suit filed by the teachers was withdrawn on the 14th November. 1969, but a fresh suit was filed by another teacher on the 18th November, 1969. On the 24th November, 1969, the President again wrote to the State Government pointing out the aforesaid facts and asking for fifteen days' time to file a reply which he was not prepared to do due to fear of contempt of Court. No reply was sent by the State Government to this representation but on the 8th June, 1970, the State Government made an order appointing an Administrator.
3. The petition impugns the appointment of the Administrator on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to show cause against the appointment as provided under proviso (b) to paragraph 20(1) of the Scheme of Administration and that the said paragraph 20 is ultra vires if it is construed as providing for appointment of an administrator in the event of mismanagement of the institution.
4. The first ground does not impress me. By his representation dated the 14th November, 1969, the President of the institution asked for fifteen days' time to file a reply to the notice if the reply did not amount to contempt
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
